Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

eldavojohn writes "There's bits and pieces of information floating around that revolve around Iwata Asks interviews on Nintendo's website. What I found interesting was the tidbit about the updatable operating system: 'Wii is the first system from Nintendo that we can continue to be involved in (via operating system updates) after the customer buys it. This means that Wii will greatly expand and diversify the ways in which people will enjoy games in the future.' The Wii is reported to operate on top of a proprietary form of the Linux kernel, although there are already efforts to make a GNU/Linux for the console. So, the answer to the age old question is that it already runs Linux."

Nvidia are definitely distributing their kernel extentions via their web site. You are playing with words here.

No. The important difference is that Nvidia is making their kernel module accessible through the website. Then YOU have to download it and LINK it against the kernel. They are legally doing nothing wrong with that - it is the users deciding to use the proprietary module with the kernel.

If you use Linux you have to expect that you won't be able to use the latest and greatest hardware available unless you're willing to accept some bitter terms from the manufacturer to protect their intellectual property

How about: "If you use ANY operating system, you won't be able to use the latest and greatest hardware available unless you're willing to accept some bitter terms from the manufacturer to protect their intellectual property". Using Linux doesn't subject you to terms that are more bitter, it's just that we Linux users have grown to expect freedom.

I don't think so. I guess I phrased this badly. It's reportedly (no official Nintendo release yet) that the Wii will be using a Linux kernel with a proprietary GUI. Whether or not they are modifying the kernel (like Google has done so that it fits there needs) I cannot say. All I know is that they can either look at the GUI separately from the kernel and leave the kernel under the GPL or they can bundle it all together and not fret over releasing it under the GPL.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not too clear on the GPL. I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code. I could be wrong though.

Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

But under GPL 2, there's no guarantee that the hardware provided with the software will allow an improved version to run, which makes an end-run around FSF freedom #1 [gnu.org]. Linus Torvalds reportedly likes GPL 2 much better than the GPL 3 drafts [google.com], deliberately not caring about freedom #1 for hobbyist end users of proprietary hardware.

It's not even trusted computing. It's just that Linus wants his system to be successful, and forcing companies to do things they do not want to do is a great way to fail at that. There are plenty of reasons why companies don't want people to mess with their hardware -- control, competition, proprietary licensing, and many other reasons. If you are using a piece of software or hardware licensed from someone else and have to respect the NDA, you can't just go handing out source code left and right. For in

Sure, being able to run the software on a different machine is great, but RMS wants computing to be free, not strictly software. My understanding is that what bugs him is people having computers, and not being free to use, modify, and distribute the software that runs on them. So I don't think that being able to buy some other computer to run the software quite cuts it for him, and the GPL is a legal codification of those ideals, so you'd expect the GPLv3 to take that into account.

No sources only need to be available if the end person asks for them. under the GPl Nintedo could release the source code only if you filled out a card asking for it and then paid a few for the creation and mailing of a cd with the source. So $5-$10 depending on where thy are mailing it from.Granted the first person to do that then has a right to post the complete source code minus Nintedo's trade marks on any website they choose.

It just makes more sense to hook it up to your web site and alllow people to

Nope, you are wrong. Re-read section 3 of the GPLv2; for a commercial product, it either has to come with the source or include a written offer to give ANY third party a copy of the source (for at most the cost reimbursment of the cost of distribution).

My TiVo manual includes a written offer for example (also with their download site URL); anyone (not just TiVo customers) can request a copy of the source from TiVo.

You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

As a general rule, yes. There are things which definately require you to release it, using GPL'd code or a GPL'd library. There are various shade of gray with different encapsulations of the code, I won't go into that. But there's also a few very clear cases where you do not have to distribute source:

a) By mere aggregation, i.e. the software has to actually work together, not just come on the same mediab) Using standard OS API calls (otherwise there could be no GPL'd softwara for Windows, or proprietary applications on linux)c) Using libraries that come standard with the OS/compiler (e.g. Microsofts standard C/C++ library)

So in the example he quoted, yes Nintendo could use the Linux kernel, but not release any of the userspace code if they built that from scratch, or only the modified libraries if using GTK (which is LGPL). They do need to distribute any chances they make to the kernel, but since binary drivers are tolerated it need not be more than a stub. Also, there's nothing preventing them (and I imagine they will be) using a digitally signed kernel, so that modified kernels can't be used to copy game disks.

But you don't have to distribute the compiler or especially the linker along with the source code, do you? I would imagine that the Wii linker includes a digital signing step to keep out hobbyists and other unlicensed developers.

IANAL but I think you've oversimplified the GPL. If you've written an app that links to GPL libraries, I don't believe it falls under the GPL requirements to release the source. If that were the case, you'd never see apps on Linux like Oracle or whatnot.

Standard language libraries are generally okay even if they aren't LGPL. Then there's the question of who decides which ones are part of the standard OS and may the original developer of the library just change their mind and sue no matter what.

Linking against GPL libraries requires you to release the source (since otherwise the GPL could be circumvented trivially, just by compiling the code you want to steal into a library and calling it). However, applications do not link against the kernel, which is why they're not affected by the licensing condition.

Nvidia supplies the source to an interface module. This module is linked against the kernel, and then it links in a seperate binary blob that lets the rubber meet the road.

Also, loading it taints your kernel. This means nobody is allowed to distribute the combination of linux kernel + NVidia driver in the kernel module tree, strictly speaking. That's why you have to jump through a few hoops to get it installed.

You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

Actually, you are wrong. The GPL is only required (i.e., only applicable) when copyright is involved; i.e., making a derivative work. For there to be a derivative work, there has to be a copying within the ambit of the copyright act. If you look to the Altai test (adopted by pretty much every court), you'll see that code dictated by external requirements (i.e., pretty much every piece of software running on a UNIX/Linux system has to use malloc, etc., and thus must either call the system calls directly or via the C Library) is specifically filtered out of the copyright comparison. So any interface calls, even symbols brought in from include files, are [strongly] arguably not even copyrightable (a 'method of operation'; see, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 102, and Lotus v. Borland, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995)) and even if they are, would be stripped out of any comparison of code done in an infringement action. Absent an infringement, there's no need for GPL applicability...

Further, the COPYING file for the Linux kernel (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING [kernel.org]) specifically carves out "user programs that use kernel services by normal system call." So, with appropriate facts, one could easily argue copyright estoppel in the (unlikely) event that Linus (as the copyright holder for much, if not most, of the kernel, AFAIK -- the FSF, etc. would not have standing to sue, it would have to be Linus or some other kernel contributor whose work was in the Wii) brought suit.

I think Nintendo could have a modified Linux kernel for which they offer the source code to Wii owners to satisfy the GPL requirements. Atop that they could have any proprietary system without needing to release that code, just as various proprietary software packages run atop Linux. The only potential issue would be a binary-only video driver, though Linus' stance is that this is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel.

Not just 'Wii owners'. Everyone. That's the whole point of the GPL. It gives you the freedom to run it and distribute it as much as you want, but if you change ANYTHING you must provide those changes to EVERYONE.

So as long as they don't actually modify the kernel, and ship it with a custom GUI (under any license), they are fine.

I'm sure if Nintendo finds the need to fix/modify the kernel, or any other GPL'd software they use, they'll release the changes.

No, they need only provide the source to the people you ship it to. Of course this is academic as they must apply the GPL to the work-as-a-whole, so those people would in turn have the right to redistribute the code under those same terms. at least.. as I read the GPL... IANAL

To be bluntly, you don't seem to be a software engineer either. It wouldn't be the first time that rumour sites would be mixing up technical terms and concepts, though.

A graphical user interface would most likely sit completely in userland [wikipedia.org], while the Linux kernel [wikipedia.org] would only contain a device driver for communicating with the hardware. The user-mode parts can be as proprietary as Nintendo wants them to be, but any changes to the kernel itself must be released or they'll be violating the terms of use of th

The GPL requires you to give source to anyone you give a binary to. You can modify GPL software for internal use and not release the source, but if you release the source, you are required to release the binaries.

They could indeed develop a proprietary GUI without modifying the kernel at all. The kernel code is entirely separate from the GUI code, aside from a few drivers, and they can inject propietary drivers and taint the kernel.

The short answer is, yeah, it's incorrect, and it is a little alarming to read, but people are probably overreacting with their responses to this one.

"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other lic

Did I say I didnt like the Dreamcast? I have two of them...imported the first one (black dreamcasts werent available here in the states until the sports edition right before it died, I own a real copy of both Bangai-Oh! and Ikaruga along with around 50 other originals. The problem with the dreamcast and making games for it is that any idiot with a burner could just pirate the crap out of their games. Sega was dumb enough to launch a console that was even on paper weaker than the competition a full year be

Assuming the Wii really does run Linux, they will doubtless be using the TiVo hole to get around the GPL v2.

That is, they'll provide the source code with their proprietary modifications for the Wii hardware, but it'll be totally useless as the Wii hardware will be designed so that it will only run code signed by Nintendo. So the modified code will be useless to Wii owners, and also useless to everyone else as PC hardware won't have any use for the Wii hardware support.

And Linus will no doubt say that this is just peachy.

I think it's exactly the kind of crap the GPL was supposed to stop. If I purchase hardware and software that's GPL licensed, I should be able to modify the software and run the modified version on the only hardware it's useful for, the hardware I own. That's why I support RMS's efforts with GPL v3 [ath0.com] and think they're a good thing. In fact, I think they should go further.

The title is misleading. It isn't going to run a user customisable Linux GUI when turned on, the Wii just has that capability. Just like the XBox. And The PS2. To make this a selling point is just another example of how people are doing everything they can to suck up to Nintendo. I know Sony hasn't been on top of any game for a while, but with the sheer hatred suffers has and all the Nintendo worship going on, I'm starting to feel like there are very few important people who are dedicated to making me want to buy a Wii.
And they aren't from Nintendo.

The Wii is reported to operate on top of a proprietary form of the Linux kernel,

Who is reporting that? Its the first time I hear that and the linked webpages don't really give any more detail, the Iwata interview simply states that the Wii will have upgradable firmware, nothing Linux related.

It was "reported" once at a single site and, like so much Wii speculation that has gone before, passed through the fanboy blog echo chamber until it has far more credibility than it deserves.

The person who posted the original story really should have done the 5 minutes research I just did, there is zero credible evidence that Nintendo has done anything at all with Linux. The "source" of the original speculation is someone named "Kiyoshi Saruwatari", who claims to be a designer who doesn't work for Nintendo, but has worked with them. He never names a company, specific business interactions, the nature of his work, nothing. His "facts" seem to consist of pure conjecture and swizzling of common publically released information (Virtual Console, etc).

In the months before the Wii controller was revealed at Tokyo Game Show 2005, there was a rash of "insider" blogs, with a lot of suspiciously made-up sounding Japanese names, with calculatedly poor English skills. These blogs were the source of a lot of the early misinformation, the "VR helmet" nonsense, the "secretly more graphically powerful than both Xbox 360 and PS3", the "Kid Icarus sequel", etc. My guess is half of them were American or European fanboys who were trying to stir things up.

In short I don't consider it responsible to call the single, highly dubious rumor that Nintendo is using Linux "reporting", and I hope this doesn't touch off a lot of controversy over what began with nothing more than a big fat lie / hoax.

I call bullshit on this one, Nintendo wouldn't touch GPLed code with a 10 foot pole. They have always kept their platforms in an iron grip, using GPLed code would allow outsiders to take a peek. Nintendo vs. Tengen [wikipedia.org] anyone?

Which is obviously why the standard compiler for the GBA (and probably DS) is GCC. Because they're deathly afraid of anything even related to "Open Source", as evidenced by 20 year old lawsuits. Who can imagine that anything's changed in such a short time frame?

Oh he's a fake alright. The most obvious reason is that if he did have any connections with Nintendo he'd of been fired or sued for NDA breach by now. Another obvious reason is that some of his previous statements have already been proven false.

As for a Linux OS on the Wii, I doubt it. It's memory footprint is too large for one

There's no such thing as a "proprietary form" of Linux. The kernel is released under the GPL, and therefore any derivations/modifications must be released under the GPL, and hence are not proprietary. If they deny source code, or release it under a license non-compatible with the GPL, it will be clearly illegal.

Restricting the hardware to only run signed binaries, would allow them to comply with the letter of the GPL if not the spirit. Any modifications could be released under the GPL and no one would be able to compile a custom kernel for the Wii.

Running Linux that can be downloaded to a Wii means old Wiis will still be around to compete with new ones. Combined with their dubious (no matter how you look at it) claim that their Linux will be a "proprietary Linux", that sounds a lot like the vaporware announcement game console makers are used to peddling to credulous game "journalism" media.

Will the new generation of game consoles get converted to the slightly more cross-examined PC press tricks from their generations of easy lying to game press? Or will they turn the tiny amount of PC journalism accountability into the standard lying that defines the much larger market?

Combined with their dubious (no matter how you look at it) claim that their Linux will be a "proprietary Linux", that sounds a lot like the vaporware announcement game console makers are used to peddling to credulous game "journalism" media.

It would vaporware talk if Nintendo actually said they're running Linux. They didn't. Nowhere in the linked article does it say this. The comments in the Slashdot summary were based off rumor.

As for "upgradable OSes" on consoles, not exactly a new concept. PS2 had several revisions. Both Xbox and Xbox 360 have updates via Xbox Live. The fact that it's going to be an online console should've been evidence enough that there would be udpates.

What are the implications for PC-based Linux as a gaming platform?
The reason I usually see people explaining games not being published to run on Linux is that there just aren't enough of them to make it economically viable, creating a chicken-and-the-egg problem. Does this slice through that particular Gordian knot?

"The installed user base isn't there because the software isn't there which is because the user base isn't there--"

There's plenty of software out there, just not games. PCs, for example, didn't start as a game console. They rose in numbers for productivity reasons, and the game market was born. It might help if there were more games, but honestly, I just don't see it being the catalyst. What company is going to invest all that money to make a game and sell a whoppin 10,000 copies?

Wii is the first system from Nintendo that we can continue to be involved in (via operating system updates) after the customer buys it. This means that Wii will greatly expand and diversify the ways in which people will enjoy games in the future.

A proprietary from of the Linux kernel? That can only come from someone who has just maybe Slashdot a bit and doesn't know a thing about Linux, free software or mabye software at all.

Any Linux kernel is per definition (of the GPL) free. That is the whole point of the GPL. There can't be a proptietary version. If they include the Linux kernel, they will have to include the source to it and to all the components that directly link to it, like drivers (proprietary drivers exist, but there is a discussion, sometimes on Slashdot as well, if that is legal). If they ship userland stuff along they can keep the source, for example for a gui.

What they can do is lock it all up so you can't mod it. Then the device will only accept signed modifications (like upgrades) from CDs or their server. Wether you do this with open or closed source doesn't matter. It might be easier to find security holes to smuggle in your mod this way. But OTOH they already mod the PSP this way even though it is closed source.That is the big discussion about the GPLv3 btw. I guess what the FSF wants to achieve is that if you use GPLv3 code you may not lock down your device this way.

Maybe Nintendo couldn't get fully-functional, reliable drivers for current chipsets like the rest of us.

What you see as funny, I see as an oportunity.Nintendo will get drivers for the wii chipset, and, being linux under the GPL, it could be an excellent oportunity to get some open source drivers.

Even if they use binary drivers, there will be some sort of stub module that can be used to interface with the binary portion. That driver will probably be useful somewhere else, unless the wii is 100% custom hardwa

This may be a bad sign. Now they can turn off features by remote control, insist that you connect frequently to get updates, introduce new bugs remotely, and try to force you to sign up for new "revenue streams". Just like Microsoft and Tivo.

If this article proves to actually be true - and I'm taking it with a rather large grain of salt - is it possible that we might be able to turn off region coding? At the moment I'm refusing to buy a Wii because of the regioning, especially on the virtual console games. PAL games from the 8/16-bit era were usually absolutely horrible.

If nintendo were to release the a PC version of the GUI this could mean big trouble for microsoft. The only reason I boot into "wintendo" is to play games. Who needs wintendo when you can run nintendo:)

That's not a loophole at all -- the loophole is that you can lock down the CPU to only run signed code and this has nothing to do with Linux at all. Its perfectly plausible that Microsoft could give you the source code to whatever runs on an XBox 360 up front and let you play with it all you want, but that you still wouldn't be able to get your modified versions to load up on your 360 since it requires signed code.The openness of the software doesn't necessarily reflect on the hardware it runs on. And in

Just out of curiosity and aside from hermits/loners, what generalized groups would you consider not community-minded? Beowulf clusters are certainly a long running joke here, but this is hardly the only forum where jokes tend to live ad infinitum. To further the stereotype though, I personally think the Wii would make a pretty sweet webserver - low heat and power consumption, more than enough CPU to do the job.

In probably a Tivo-type of way. I wonder if this is one of the things that the GPLv3 would prevent?

Why would the kernel developers as distinct from a seperate group that does not contribute to the kernel want to stop them? RMS is described in computer magazine that should know better as the co-creator of linux but he is obviously not and has his own projects.

Since Nintendo is reportedly going to make every Nintendo game ever relased available for download on the Wii at a "resonable price", I don't see why you would even want to homebrew

There's the stuff that is too small to be worth buying or Nintendo aren't sure they could sell. For example on the DS there is the little sampling keyboard toy, there is DSorganize (could Nintendo sell tens of thousands of something similar - maybe or maybe not), Moonshell (my mp3 player is a DS), a port of Heretic and a linux

I don't see why you would even want to homebrew, unless you're one of those guys who puts Linux on your Xbox to 'stick it to The Man'. Or whyever the fuck people do that.

Well -- I'm anxiously awaiting hardware to allow me to run homebrew on my DS so that I can help out a guy who's developing some DS-native tools for learning Lojban. (Actually, helping him out is the whole reason I bought the DS, though Brain Age has turned out to be quite an excellent secondary reason).

According to the folks at Nintendo, Wii doesn't have high-end specs because it was designed to be small (about the size of 3 DVD cases), quiet (so you can leave it on 24/7), and very power efficient (again, for leaving it on 24/7). Take a look at the Xbox 360 and current models of the PS3; these things are huge and can run very hot if not ventilated correctly. This is due to their huge amount of computing power.